" 


£900 

r^3 


A 

A 
0 

0 
0 

3 
6 
9 

4 

3 
5 

3 


li 


0 


erf 


/ 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE, 

GENTLEMAN 


WAS 

WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE 

A  GENTLEMAN? 


SOME  QUESTIONS  IN  SHAKSPERE'S    BIOGRAPHY 
DETERMINED 


BT 


SAMUEL  A.  TANNENBAUM 


"If  no  Gentleman,   why  then  no  Arms" 

Taming  of  the  Shrew,     II.  1 


THE  TENNY   PRESS 

1193  Broadway.  New  York 

1909 


COPYRIGHTED  JULY.  1909 
BY 

THE  TENNY  PRESS 


This    Study 
is    respectfully    and    affectionately 
dedicated    to 
DR.  WILLIAM  J.  ROLFE, 
whose  industry  and  brilliant  scholar- 
ship have    placed    him  in  the  front 
rank  of   the  Shakspere  scholars  of 
the  world. 


PR 


. 


'When  we  in  our  viciousnesse  grow  hard 
(Oh,  misery  on't)  the  wise  Gods  scclc  our  eyes 
In  our  own  filth,  drop  our  clcare  judgements,  make  us 
Adore  our  errors,  laugh  at 's  while  zee  strut 
To  our  confusion.'" — Anth.  and  Cle.,  III.,  13. 


HE  least  that  should  be  required  of  a 
biographer  is  that  he  shall  set  forth  the 
known  facts  in  the  life  of  his  subject  as 
accurately  and  as  sympathetically  as  ex- 
tant evidence  will  permit ;  that  he  shall 
not  distort  or  manipulate  that  evidence, 
or  disregard  any  of  it,  in  accordance  with  precon- 
ceived theories  or  prejudices.  Certainly,  considering 
all  that  William  Shakspere  means  to  humanity,  the 
historian  who  undertakes  to  write  the  record  of  his 
life  should  report  him  and  his  cause  aright.  Instead 
of  this,  however,  we  find  that,  owing  to  ignorance 
of  the  meagre  evidence  at  our  command  or  to  a  fail- 
ure to  appreciate  the  importance  of  that  evidence 
and,  to  a  considerable  extent,  to  carelessness  and 
slavish  following  of  preceding  writers,  the  name 
and  memory  of  William  Shakspere — the  greatest 
artist  in  the  tide  of  time — have  been  most  unjustly 
vilified  and  calumniated  almost  beyond  belief  by  those 
whose  glory  it  should  have  been  to  exalt  them.  Were 
one  to  undertake  the  depressing  task  of  looking  for 
the  man  Shakspere  in  most  of  his  biographies  he 
would  find  there  the  record  of  one  born  in  poverty 


8  WAS     SHAKSPERE 


and  filth  ;  lacking  in  education  and  breeding ;  addicted 
to  loafing,  drinking  and  poaching;  guilty  of  libel  and 
seduction ;  a  fugitive  from  justice ;  a  hard-hearted 
usurer;  an  adulterer,  and  so  on  ad  nauseam.  And 
this  monster,  this  thing  of  shreds  and  patches,  we  are 
to  accept  for  the  "sweet  swan  of  Avon,"  "silver- 
tongued  Mellicert,"  "the  soul  of  the  age,"  the  man 
whom  rare  Hen  loved  this  side  idolatry !  Is  it  any 
wonder  that  Emerson,  with  this  picture — this  Frank- 
enstein— before  him,  should  have  said  (Representa- 
tive Men,  Boston,  1850,  p.  215)  that  he  could  not 
marry  the  man  who  had  led  such  a  profane  life  to  his 
verse,  or  that  the  Rev.  William  Henry  Furness 
should  not  have  been  able  to  bring  the  life  of  William 
Shakspere  and  his  reputed  works  within  a  planetary 
space  of  each  other?  Not  without  justification  has 
Shakspere  under  the  hands  of  his  biographers  been 
represented  by  Actaeon  worried  to  death  by  his  own 
dogs. 

What  little  value  is  to  be  attached  to  this  "damn'd 
defeat"  on  the  poet's  honor  will  become  apparent 
when  we  show,  as  we  intend  to  do,  the  failure  of  his 
biographers  to  get  at  the  truth  regarding  some  of  the 
simplest  facts  in  his  life,  their  great  facility  in  dis- 
torting and  misinterpreting  the  evidence  pertaining  to 
them,   and   their  predilection    for  the   exercise   of  the 


A     GENTLEMAN? 


"biographic  imagination." 

One  of  the  most  significant  and  characteristic 
facts  in  the  life  of  William  Shakspere  is  his  father's 
application  for  a  coat-of-arms.  In  the  age  of  Eliza- 
beth the  distinction  of  ranks  was  carefully  preserved — 
much    more    so    than    now — and    every    right-minded 


Englishman  who  could  afford  it  longed  for  the  dis- 
tinction of  bearing  coat-armor  and  being  writ  down 
a  "gentleman."  John  Shakspere,  the  poet's  father, 
actuated  by  the  same  motive  and  by  a  desire  to  per- 
petuate the  esteem  in  which  he  was  held  by  his  towns- 
men,— as  shown  by  his  many  civic  honors, — sought 
this  coveted  privilege  for  himself  and  his  posterity. 
The  facts,  briefly  stated,  are  these:  In  1596 — about 
the  time  of  the  reorganization  of  the  College  by  the 
Queen's  Commission — he  applied  to  the  College  of 
Heraldry,  of  which  the  notorious  William  Dethick 
was  then  the  head,  for  the  grant  of  a  certain  coat-of- 
arms  {Or,  on  a  bend  Sable  a  tilting-spear  of  the  first, 
the  point  upward  headed  Argent;  and  for  his  crest 
a  falcon  with  his  wings  displayed,  Argent,  standing 
on  a  wreath  of  his  colors,  supporting  a  spear  in  pale, 
Or,  armed  Argent,  and  provided  with  a  helmet,  man- 
tle and  tassels,  according  to  custom)  alleging  that  a 
pattern  {sic)  thereof  had  been  assigned  to  him  during 
his  bailiffship  of  Stratford-upon-Avon    (an  incorpor- 


10 WAS     SHAKSPERE 

ated  town),  by  Robert  Cook,  Clarenceux  King-at- 
Arms,  and  asserting  that  he  had  a  right  thereto  be- 
cause of  his  services  to  that  corporation,  his  marriage 
with  Mary,  the  daughter  of  Robert  Arden,  Esquire 
(descended  from  the  noble  family  of  Arden  of  Park- 
Hall,  who  traced  their  lineage  back  to  Guy  of  Warwick 
and  the  good  King  Alfred),  his  descent  from  one 
who  had  been  advanced  and  rewarded  by  King  Henry 
VII.  for  valiant  and  faithful  services,  and  his  ability 
to  maintain  the  estate  of  a  "gentleman."  Three  years 
later  (1599)  he  reappeared  at  the  College  and  applied 
to  William  Dethick,  Garter  King-at-Arms,  and  to  the 
learned  William  Camden,  Clarenceux  King-at-Arms, 
for  permission  to  impale  the  ancient  arms  of  Arden 
with  those  of  Shakspere. 

It  cannot  be  amiss  here  to  inform  the  reader  that 
of  the  two  rough  drafts  of  the  1596  grant  preserved 
at  the  College  neither  is  signed  or  sealed,  and  that 
no  duly  executed  grant  has  yet  been  discovered.  This 
is  true  also  of  the  1599  draft-grant  (as  it  is  of  all 
drafts  preserved  at  the  College)  which  is  peculiar 
also  in  the  fact  that  it  not  only  purports  to  permit 
John  Shakspere's  family  to  impale  and  quarter  Arden 
arms  with  their  own,  but  that  it  confers  on  them  anew 
the  right  to  bear  the  Shakspere  arms  as  tho  this 
had  not  been  done  before.     The  importance  of  these 


A     GENTLEMAN? U 

facts  will  become  manifest  as  we  proceed. 

It  is  curious  that  almost  all  who  have  attempted  to 
write  the  "life"  of  William  Shakspere  have  taken  it 
for  granted — without  a  particle  of  evidence  therefor — 
that  the  poet-dramatist,  ambitious  for  an  inherited 
rather  than  an  acquired  coat-of-arms  (such  a  snob 
was  the  creator  of  Hamlet,  Lear,  Brutus  and 
Othello!),  was  the  prime  mover  in  these  attempts  to 
have  his  family  enrolled  among  the  "armigeri,"  and 
that  all  but  two  or  three  have  charged  him,  his  father 
and  the  heads  of  the  College,  with  having  lied  in 
almost  every  particular  embodied  in  the  applications. 
Considering  the  amount  of  abuse,  expressed  and  im- 
plied, which  has  been  heaped  on  all  those  concerned 
in  these  transactions  one  would  suppose  that  the  mat- 
ter had  received  the  careful  attention  of  those  who 
have  written  on  the  subject.  But,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  so  little  study  has  been  devoted  to  it  that,  as  we 
have  shown  elsewhere  {Shakspere 's  Coat-of-Anns, 
New  York,  1908),  not  a  single  writer  during  the  past 
three  hundred  years  has  given  a  correct  description 
or  picture  of  the  Shakspere  arms,  and  there  is  as  yet 
no  unanimity  of  opinion  among  Shakspereans  as  to 
whether  a  coat-of-arms  had  or  had  not  been  granted, 
and,  if  made,  when  such  a  grant  had  been  made. 
Halliwell-Phillips,     Kenny,     W.     C.     Hazlitt     and 


12 WAS     SHAKSPERE 

FIcay  were  of  the  opinion  that  neither  of  the  proposed 
grants  was  ratified;  whereas  Malone,  Knight,  Dyce, 
Hudson,  Bohn  and  Nichols  claimed  that  both  appli- 
cations  had  been  crowned  with  success.  The  Rev. 
Joseph  Hunter,  R.  G.  White,  Elze,  Sidney  Lee  and  H. 
W.  Mahie  assert  that  only  the  1599  application  was 
duly  executed.  Tudor  Jenks,  whose  main  interest  in 
the  Shakspere  "coat"  is  its  decorative  use  in  editions 
of  his  works,  says  that  the  application  for  armorial 
bearings  was  not  granted  until  1399,  "and  then  with 
an  omission  of  the  Ardcn  arms."     Dr.  Dowden,  in  his 

unmatchable  Primer,  asserts  that  an  application  was 
granted  in  1597.  Dr.  William  J.  Rolfe,  whose  twice- 
told  tale  is  out  of  all  hooping  the  sanest  and  most 
sympathetic  and  most  readable  biography  of  Shaks- 
pere that  has  yet  been  written,  is  of  the  opinion  that 
"neither  of  the  drafts  made  in  1596  was  duly  exe- 
cuted" and  that  the  application  in  1399  was  granted 
as  to  the  Shakspere  arms  and  as  to  some  Ardcn  arms 
but  not  those  asked  for.  (See  A  Life  of  William 
Shakespeare,  by  W.  J.  Rolfe,  Boston,  1904,  pp.  287- 
292.)  Mrs.  C.  C.  Stopes,  who,  as  having  come  near- 
est the  exact  truth  in  the  matter,  stands  in  an  enviable 
class  by  herself,  says  (Shakespeare's  I;amily,  London, 
1 901,  pp.  22-32)  that  the  1596  application  was  success- 
ful, but  she  is  in  doubt  whether  the  grant  of  the  Arden 


A     GENTLEMAN? 13 

arms  was  ever  completed. 

The  fact  that  no  fully  executed,  engrossed  and 
sealed  patent  of  arms  to  John  Shakspere  has  been  dis- 
covered is  generally  construed  as  proof  positive  that 
neither  application  was  ratified  by  the  Heralds.  But 
this  absence  of  a  completed  patent  does  not  prove  that 
none  was  issued.  Considering  the  many  fatalities  that 
have  occurred  to  blot  out  evidence  relating  to  the 
poet, — such  as  the  total  destruction  by  fire  of  the 
Globe  Theater  in  1613 ;  two  great  fires  in  Stratford 
subsequent  to  1596;  the  great  fire  of  London  in  1666; 
the  rebuilding  and  subsequent  demolition  of  New 
Place,  the  poet's  Stratford  residence ;  the  devastating 
influence  of  time ;  the  ravages  of  enthusiastic,  but 
short-sighted,  relic  hunters  ,etc, — the  loss  of  this  docu- 
ment seems  a  very  natural  and  not  unexpected  occur- 
rence. The  completed  patent  was  the  property  of  the 
successful  candidate  for  heraldic  distinction,  and  it 
was  therefore  much  more  likely  to  succumb  to  one 
of  the  various  agencies  just  enumerated  than  the 
draft  preserved  by  the  College  authorities  for  pur- 
poses of  record.  Tradition  records  that  the  poet's 
only  granddaughter,  Lady  Barnard,  the  last  one  of 
Shakspere's  family  to  occupy  New  Place,  carried  with 
her  to  Abington,  her  second  husband's  residence,  many 
of  the  poet's  private  papers.     If  there  is  any  truth 


14  WAS     SHAKSPERE 

in    this   report   the   coveted   patent    was   undoubtedly 

one  of  those  papers,  of  which  not  a  trace  has  yet  been 
discovered.  But  the  recent  discovery  made  by  Prof. 
Charles  William  Wallace  encourages  us  to  hope  that 
a  diligent  search  or  a  lucky  accident  may  yet  bring 
it  to  light. 

As  we  have  seen,  in  1599  John  Shakspere  again 
appeared  before  the  College  of  Arms  with  an  appli- 
cation for  a  coat-of-arms,  and  from  this  it  has  been 
argued  that  his  application  in  1596  did  not  terminate 
in  accordance  with  his  wishes.  But  this  second  appli- 
cation was  not  for  an  original  grant  of  arms,  nor  for 
an  "exemplification"  of  his  arms,  as  Mr.  Lee — and 
others  after  him — would  have  it.  but  for  permission 
to  impale  with  his  own  the  arms  of  the  ancient  and 
noble  family  of  Arden.  There  is  no  denying  the  fact 
that  the  1599  draft  does  assign,  grant,  confirm  and 
exemplify  unto  John  Shakspere  his  ancient  coat-of- 
arms  and  that  the  Heralds  say  that  they  "have  like- 
wise uppo'  on  other  Escucheone  impaled  the  same 
wth  the  Auncyent  Arms  of  Arden."  but  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  the  contemplated  transaction  was 
an  exemplification  of  unassigned  arms  borne  by  the 
Shaksperes.  It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge 
that  it  was  an  almost  invariable  rule  with  the  College 
to  "assign,  grant  and  confirm"  an  old  patent  when  a 


A     GENTLEMAN  ?  15 


"gentleman"  applied  for  some  additional  armorial  dis- 
tinction. That  this  abuse  has  not  died  out  is  evident 
from  the  complaint  made  against  the  College  of  Arms 
by  A.  C.  Fox-Davies  (Genealogical  Magazine,  Oct., 
1901),  that  "the  most  trivial  alteration  desired  can 
only  be  made  by  obtaining  an  entirely  new  grant  of 
arms,  and  therefore  of  necessity  by  paying  the  whole 
of  the  fees  (L.  76  10s.)  again." 

A  third  argument  advanced  in  support  of  the 
theory  that  the  1596  grant  did  not  pass  is  the  fact 
that  "in  1597  John  Shakspere  was  still  described  as 
'yoman.'  '  But  this  proves  only  that  "Willielmus 
Courte  scriptor,"  the  writer  of  the  deed  in  which 
John  was  so  described,  was  not  aware  of  his  client's 
recent  distinction.  This  supposition  is  strengthened 
by  the  fact  that  the  said  deed,  conveying  to  George 
Badger  a  slip  of  land  belonging  to  the  "birthplace," 
bears  the  date  "vicesimo  sexto  die  Januarii  anno  .  .  . 
1596,"  i.  e.,  Jan.  26,  1597,  which  was  less  than  three 
months  after  the  date  of  the  grant  of  arms,  too  short 
a  time  for  the  fact  to  have  become  a  matter  of  general 
knowledge.  ( It  is  also  possible  that  the  patent  of  arms 
was  not  signed  by  Dethick  until  a  few  weeks  after 
Oct.  20,  1596 — the  date  on  the  draft.)  John  did  not 
call  the  scrivener's  attention  to  the  error  because  the 
document,  being  written  in  Latin,  was  not  read  to  him. 


16 WAS     SHAKSPERE 

Old  deeds,  wills,  etc.,  are  notoriously  defective  in  such 
minor  details.  (For  a  striking  example  of  this  sort  of 
inaccuracy  see  Dcionshirc  Wills,  pp.  ~J  and  [68.) 

In  one  of  the  early  editions  of  his  "Outlines  of  the 
Life  of  William  Shakespeare,''  Mr.  Halliwell-Phillipps 
wrote:  "Had  a  grant  been  made  in  1596  it  would  have 
been  so  stated  in  1599."  Why  the  Heralds  should 
have  said  anything  about  the  date  of  the  former 
rant  does  not  appear.  An  examination  of  hundreds 
of  patents  has  convinced  us  that  it  was  the  custom  at 
the  College  never  to  give  the  date  of  a  previous  grant 
of  arms.  Every  "gentleman"  prefers  to  read  in  his 
patent  "this  his  ancient  coat-of-arms"  than   "this  his 

coat-of-arms  assigned  to  him  in  the  year ."     For 

the  purposes  of  the  Heralds  it  was  sufficient  to  say 
that  the  applicant  had  arms  of  his  own,  and  that  his 
social  rank  was  such  as  not  to  preclude  him  from  im- 
paling his  wife's  arms.  The  1599  draft-grant  does,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  declare  that  John  Shakspere  pro- 
duced an  ancient  "cote  of  arms  heretofore  assigned  to 
him  whilest  he  was  her  Majesty's  officer  and  baylife." 
The  truth  of  this  assertion  has  been  unwarrantably 
challenged  by  those  who  presume  to  know  the  Col- 
lege's and  John's  affairs  better  than  they  knew  it. 
In  1596  John  Shakspere  had  made  the  statement 
which  the  inexpert   (inexpert  because  young)   Herald 


A     GENTLEMAN? 17 

(Augustine  Vincent,  the  original  owner  of  the  "unique 
First  Folio"  now  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Folger.) 
who  wrote  the  draft  did  not  get  quite  straight,  that 
while  he  was  Bailiff  of  Stratford,  some  twenty-five 
years  earlier,  a  pattern  of  arms,  i.  e.,  a  sketch  or  trick 
of  arms,  had  been  assigned  to  him  by  Clarenceux  Cook. 
(If  A.  Vincent  was  born  in  1584,  how  could  he  have 
written  this  draft  in  1596?)  It  appears  then  that  the 
1596  transaction  was  in  reality  an  exemplification  or 
confirmation  of  that  pattern.  Garter  Dethick  hav- 
ing complied  with  the  applicant's  request  in  1596,  the 
Heralds  might  with  perfect  accuracy  and  in  accord- 
ance with  the  customs  of  the  College  speak  of  his 
ancient  coat-of-arms  assigned  to  him  during  his  bailiff- 
ship.  As.  Mr.  Charles  H.  Athill,  the  present  incum- 
bent of  the  office  of  Richmond  Herald,  writes  us  (in 
a  letter  dated  "College  of  Arms,  London,  December 
21,  1908"),  the  fact  that  "the  (1596)  Arms  appear 
again  in  the  assignment  for  Arden  in  1599  clearly 
proves,  if  proof  were  necessary,  that  the  1596  patent 
did  pass,  otherwise  they  would  not  have  been  included 
in  that  patent." 

From  the  absence  of  any  recorded  instance  of  the 
assumption  of  the  Arden  arms  by  any  member  of  the 
Shakspere  family — and  from  other  facts  to  be  ad- 
duced hereafter — it  seems  reasonably  certain  that  the 


18 


WAS     SHAKSPERE 


application  for  permission  to  impale  those  arms  was 
not  granted  or  was  withdrawn  by  the  applicant.  On 
the  poet's  monument  in  the  Stratford  Church  only  the 
Shakspere  arms  are  displayed,  and  those  arms  alone 
appear  impaled  on  the  seal  and  on  the  tombstone  of 
William's  eldest  daughter,  Susannah  Hall.  On  the 
gravestone  of  Dr.  John  Hall,  the  poet's  son-in-law, 
only  the  Shakspere  arms  are   impaled   with  those  of 


Oa/ 

i 

r 

V 

. 

-a* 


<b> 


Arden  arms  sketched  in  the  1599  drift . 
(Ar  -  white;     Or  -  gold.     Az  -  blue;     Cu-redJ 


Hall,  and  the  tombstone  of  Thomas  Nash,  the  first 
husband  of  the  poet's  grandchild,  Elizabeth  Hall, 
shows  the  arms  of  Nash,  Bulstrode,  Hall  and  Shak- 
spere, but  not  those  of  Arden.  (These  are  reproduced 
in  G.  R.  French's  Shakspeareona  Genealogica,  London, 


A     GENTLEMAN?  19 


1869,  pp.  4I3-4I5-) 

The  facts  just  mentioned,  taken  in  connection  with 
those  that  follow,  prove  beyond  the  possibility  of  any 
doubt  that  the  Shakspere  arms  had  been  granted  and, 
since  the  1599  application  was  not  approved  by  the 
Heralds,  that  the  grant  must  have  been  made  in  1596. 
The  supposition  that  puritan  Dr.  Hall  would  have  had 
those  arms  sculptured  on  the  poet's  Stratford  monu- 
ment, or  would  have  borne  them  himself,  or  that  the 
other  members  of  the  family  would  have  done  so,  if 
the  coat  had  not  been  granted,  is  preposterous.  Judg- 
ing from  the  resolutions  passed  by  the  Stratford  coun- 
cil in  161 1  and  1612  (See  Mrs.  Stopes'  Shakespeare's 
Family,  p.  225.)  actors  and  playwrights  were  not  held 
in  such  high  esteem  in  Stratford  as  to  allow  the  de- 
piction of  unassigned  armorial  insignia  on  a  "com- 
mon player's"  tomb  within  the  choir  of  Holy  Trinity 
Church.  In  connection  with  this  it  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  by  the  law  of  the  realm  painters,  gravers, 
etc.,  were  strictly  prohibited  from  painting,  graving, 
etc.,  a  coat-of-arms  which  was  not  lawfully  borne,  and 
that  the  deputies  of  the  Kings-of-Arms  had  the  right 
to  pull  down  and  deface  any  tomb  or  monument  that 
bore  a  coat-of-arms  which  had  not  been  legally  as- 
signed. (See  J.  Edmondson's  A  Complete  Body  of 
Heraldry,  London,  1780,  Vol.  I,  pp.   158-159,  and  J. 


20 


WAS     SHAKSPERE 


Guillim's  A  Display  of  Heraldry,  London,  17-M.  p.  I5-) 
The  conclusions  arrived  at  in   the   preceding  para- 
graph are  corroborated  by  a  scries  of  facts  which  may 
be  thus  arrayed  : 

1.  Early  in  the  17th  century  (?  1601)  one  Ralph 
Brooke — the  most  unpopular  member  of  the  College — 
York    Herald,    galled    at    the    advancement    of    the 


Arms  of  Susanna   Hall. 
(St  -  black) 


"learned"  William  Camden  over  his  head,  preferred 
charges  against  his  superiors,  alleging  that  they  had 
granted    arms    improperly    in    some    twenty-three    in- 


A     GENTLEMAN?  21 


stances,  John  Shakspere's  among  them.  Camden  and 
Dethick,  in  their  answer  to  the  commission  which 
had  been  specially  appointed  to  investigate  these 
charges,  say  {MS.  Coll.  of  Anns,  Vol.  W-Z,  f.  276.) 
that  objections  had  been  made  "to  certen  arms  sup- 
posed to  be  wrongfully  given/-'  (Italics  ours.)  In 
their  address  to  the  commission  they  speak  of  objec- 
tions having  been  made  concerning  "these  arms 
granted,  or  the  persons  to  whom  they  have  been 
granted."  (Italics  ours.)  The  mere  fact  that  the 
malicious  Brooke  ("None  were  secure  from  his  un- 
merited attacks"  says  Mark  Noble  in  his  History  of 
the  College  of  Arms.)  included  the  arms  of  Shakspere 
in  his  strictures  shows  that  these  arms  had  been 
granted  ;  the  arraignment  of  his  superiors  would  have 
been  ridiculous  had  he  included  in  his  complaint  arms 
which  had  not  been  granted.  Besides,  the  Kings  of 
Arms  admit  that  the  arms  complained  of  had  been 
assigned.  It  is  with  pleasure  that  we  add  that  even 
Mr.  Lee  concedes  that  Brooke's  complaint  was  "based 
on  vexatious  grounds  that  could  not  be  upheld." 

2.  In  their  defence  of  the  Shakspere  grant  Dethick 
and  Camden  (May  io,  1602)  use  the  following 
words :  "The  person  to  whom  it  was  granted  hath 
borne  magestracy."  (Italics  ours.)  That  only  the 
Shakspere  arms  (and  not  the  Arden  arms)  were  ob- 


22  WAS     SHAKSPERE 

jected  to  by  Brooke  and  that,  consequently,  only  they 
had  been  granted,  are  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  their 
answer  ("it  was  granted")  Camden  and  Dethick  speak 
only  of  those  arms  and  the  Shakspere  coat  alone  is 
sketched  (in  colors)  in  the  margin.  (See  facsimile  in 
the  Miscellanea  Genealogica  et  Heraldica,  Second 
Series,   1886,  Vol.    1,   p.    109.)      In   passing  we   may 


"*»*         Ks  *•_•      *  -.' 


final  ^yu.ttvt*-cUytr\t*-a.*  4?/irO'W*£fc  «J>cn- JlviTrt  Kf,  MOTn 

Reply  of  Deihick  and  Camden 
(Reduced  facsimile) 


remark  that  the  genuineness  of  the  documents  herein 
referred  to  has  never  been  questioned. 

3.  In  the  Harleian  MS.  6140,  at  folio  45.  (in  the 
British  Museum)  there  is  a  tricking  of  the  arms  of 
'"William  (sic)  Shackspare,  a  pattent  per  William 
Dethike,   Garter   Principal    King  of  Arms."     This  of 


A     GENTLEMAN  ?  23 

*  — 

itself  would  seem  to  prove  that  only  the  1596  appli- 
cation, which  came  before  Dethick  alone,  was  suc- 
cessful. It  is  greatly  to  be  regretted  that  not  one  of 
those  who  have  heretofore  studied  this  subject — Ma- 
lone,  Nichols,  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Tucker,  Lee — have 
thought  it  worth  while  to  ascertain  when  and  by  whom 
this  entry  was  written.  Our  own  efforts  to  do  this, 
though  accompanied  by  the  willingness  to  pay  the 
customary  pounds  and  shillings,  have  proved  fruitless. 

4.  In  the  so-called  "Sixth  Edition"  of  John  Guil- 
lim's  Display  of  Heraldry,  London,  1724,  p.  338,  we 
find  a  description  of  the  Shakspere  coat  supplemented 
with  the  statement  that  it  had  been  "given  by  William 
Dethick  Garter,  to  William  (sic)  Shakespear  the  re- 
nowned Poet."  (See  our  Shakspere' s  Coat-of-Arms, 
p.  15.)  Inasmuch  as  the  editor  of  this  learned  work 
could  not  have  obtained  his  information  other  than  at 
first  hand  from  documents  in  the  College  or  elsewhere 
— Nicholas  Rowe's  Account  of  the  Life,  etc.,  of  Mr. 
William  Shakespear  (1709),  the  only  biography  of  the 
poet  then  available,  says  nothing  about  the  coat-of- 
arms — his  testimony  is  of  importance  in  establishing 
the  fact  that  the  application  made  in  1596  terminated 
in  a  patent. 

5.  In  the  Index  College  of  Arms,  or  "E.  D.  N. 
Alphabet"    ("a  book  in  which  the  Officers  of  Arms 


24 


WAS     SHAKSPERE 


make  notes  of  any  Coats  of  Arms  they  are  interested 
in," — Clias.  H.  Athill,  Richmond  Herald,  in  a  letter 
to  the  writer  dated  "London,  30  Nov.  1908."),  the 
Sliakspere  coat  is  described  and  said  to  have  been 
"granted   20  October,    1596,   to   John    Shakspere,   of 


Arms   of  Trios.  Nash. 

Stratford-upon-Avon,  in  Com.  Warr.,  Gent.,  per  Will 
Dethick."  This  entry,  written  (as  we  learn  from 
Mr.  Athill)  by  John  Warburton,  Somerset  Herald 
(17201759),  furnishes  strong  evidence  as  to  the 
grant  of  a  patent  in  1596. 

6.     Mr.   Chas.  H.   Athill    (under  date  "College  of 


A     GENTLEMAN?  25 

Arms,  London,  21  Dec,  1908")  writes  us:  "The 
(Shakspere)  arms  appear  again  in  the  assignment  for 
Arden  in  1599,  clearly  proving,  if  proof  were  neces- 
sary, that  the  1596  Patent  did  pass,  otherwise  they 
would  not  have  been  inserted  in  that  Patent  *  *  * 
The  issuing  of  the  Patent  has  never  been  questioned 
here." 

7.  After  1597  William  Shakspere  is  described  as 
"Gent."  and  "Master"  in  numerous  documents  and  in 
the  published  writings  of  his  contemporaries.  Aside 
from  the  question  whether  the  dramatist  would  have 
permitted  this  had  he  not  been  entitled  to  it,  this 
testimony  is  of  value  inasmuch  as  no  official,  clerk, 
scrivener,  etc.,  was  permitted  to  give  in  any  writing 
the  addition  of  "esq."  or  "gent."  to  one  not  lawfully 
entitled  thereto.  In  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  the 
Kings  of  Arms  had  been  empowered  "to  reprove,  con- 
trol and  make  infamous  by  proclamation  all  such  as 
unlawfully  and  without  just  authority,  usurped  or  took 
any  name  or  title  of  honour  or  dignity,  as  esquire, 
gentleman,  or  other."     (Cf.  Edmondson,  /.  c.) 

We  may  well  pause  to  inquire  whether  the  solution 
of  the  questions  dealt  with  in  the  preceding  pages 
throws  any  light  on  the  character  of  William  Shak- 
spere? Unquestionably,  yes.  Mr.  Sidney  Lee, — and 
we  cite  him  especially  only  because  of  his  eminence 


26 


WAS     SHAKSPERE 


and  the  popularity  of  his  work, — having  assumed  that 
no  arms  had  been  granted  the  Shaksperes  in  1596,  says 
(Shakespeare's  Life  ami  Work,  New  York,  L900,  p. 
95)  :  "In  1599  their  efforts  were  crowned  with  suc- 
cess. Changes  in  the  interval  (1596-1599)  among  the 
officials  at  the  College  may  have  facilitated  the  pro- 
ceedings.   In  1597  the  Earl  of  Essex  had  become  Earl 


Arms   of   lohn   Hill. 


Marshal  and  chief  of  the  Heralds'  College;  while  the 
great  scholar  and  antiquary,  William  Camden,  had 
joined  the  College,  also  in  1597,  as  Clarenceux  King- 
of-Arms.  The  poet  was  [  ?j  favorably  known  to  both 
Camden  and  the  Earl  of  Essex,  the  close  friend  of  the 


A     GENTLEMAN?  27 

Earl  of  Southampton.  His  father's  application  now 
took  a  new  form.  Xo  grant  of  arms  was  asked  for. 
It  was  asserted  without  qualification  that  the  coat  had 
been  assigned  to  John  Shakespeare  while  he  was  bailiff, 
and  the  heralds  were  merely  invited  to  give  him  a 
'recognition'  or  'exemplification'  of  it.  [This  is  one 
of  those  unwarranted  assertions  which  so  mar  Mr. 
Lee's  biography  of  the  poet.]  An  exemplification  was 
invariably  secured  more  easily  than  a  new  grant  of 
arms.  The  heralds  might,  if  they  chose,  tacitly  accept, 
without  examination,  the  applicant's  statement  that 
his  family  had  borne  arms  long  ago,  and  they  thereby 
regarded  themselves  as  relieved  of  the  obligation  of 
close  inquiry  into  his  present  status.  *  *  *  The  Col- 
lege officers  were  characteristically  complacent"  (  !). 
That  there  was  less  responsibility  attaching  to  an  ex- 
emplification than  to  an  original  grant  of  arms  we 
utterly  deny.  Dethick  knew  better.  In  June,  1597, 
eight  months  after  John's  first  application,  a  verdict 
had  been  rendered  in  Star  Chamber  proceedings  de- 
claring Dethick  culpable  in  the  granting  of  an  unwar- 
ranted exemplification  to  George  Rotheram,  and  he 
was  not  likely  to  repeat  the  offense,  especially  when 
Ralph  Brooke,  the  watchdog  of  the  College,  was  on 
the  alert  for  just  such  an  opportunity  to  attack  him. 
If  Mr.  Lee's  theorv  were  correct  we  should  have  to 


28  WAS     SHAKSPERE 

regard  William  Shakspcre  (the  greatest,  wisest  and 
loftiest  teacher  of  mankind)  and  his  father  (one  of  the 
oldest  and  most  respected  citizens  of  Stratford)  as 
having  entered  into  a  conspiracy  with  the  heads  of  the 
College  to  have  themselves  enrolled  among  the  gentry. 
Apart  from  our  aversion  to  helieve  this  of  the  author 
of  "Hamlet"  and  "Lear"  and  "The  Tempest,"  we  find 
that  the  known  facts,  singly  and  collectively,  refute  the 
implied  charge  of  fraud  and  venality  in  the  applica- 
tion. Arms  having  been  granted  in  1596,  no  appli- 
cation for  arms  was  made  in  1599  and  there  was  no 
need  for  Southampton's  influence  with  the  College. 
There  was  no  demand  on  the  "characteristic  com- 
placency" of  the  College  officers.  Moreover,  that  "in- 
fluence" was  not  operative  in  1599  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  the  request  for  Arden  arms  did  not  terminate 
in  a  grant. 

I  Wit  all  this  tells  us  only  that  William  Shakspere 
did  not  resort  to  fraud  and  corruption  to  have  himself 
made  a  "gentleman."  It  does  not  tell  us  anything 
positive  about  the  great  actor-poet;  and  yet  it  is  of 
inestimable  value  as  showing  us  that  the  beautiful 
picture  of  him — dim  and  shadowy  as  that  is — drawn 
by  his  contemporaries  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  re- 
sults of  modern  research.  It  is  none  the  less  true 
that,  as  Ingleby  says,  "after  the  lapse  of  two  centuries 


A     GENTLEMAN?  29 

and  a  half  of  gropings  into  the  vulgar  life  and  out- 
ward seeming  of  the  man,  it  is  happily  ( ?)  quite 
hopeless  to  draw  his  frailties  from  their  dread  abode." 


"Be  thou  as  chaste  as  ice,  as  pure  as  snow,  thou 
slialt  not  escape  calumny." 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


X 


R&41 


*W* 


Form  L9-75m-7,'61(CI  l;>7.sl)444 


f»  111 


3  1158  00404  9705 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  369  435 


